DaveG38

No, but when grants are applied for and given, the UK government doesn't just take the cash and do what it wants with it. It has to be spent for the purposes for which it was given. That's not unreasonable, but the fact is that the UK government does not control this money, the EU does. The EU also decides who it goes to, the UK government doesn't. Thus for example, the EU financed much of the investment needed to provide Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly with superfast broadband. Welcome I'm sure it was, but it wasn't the government that decided to do this, using our money, it was the EU. My argument about the EU is always about control and democracy. We should have it and not unelected people elsewhere over whom we have absolutely no say. We can't stop them doing whatever they wish, we can't sack them, we can't hold them to account. We are powerless and for that reason alone, I'm for out.

Sorry, but which part isn't true? My understanding is that the rebate isn't set in stone and can be withdrawn. Equally, the grants are directed. And the figure before all this is £350 million as far as I know, so which part isn't true?

The 'lie' about the £350 million is more a case of not properly explaining how that figure is arrived at and what mitigates it. Strictly speaking the figure is correct, but leave don't say that a good proportion of that comes back. Fair enough, but it is equally true that the rebate isn't sacrosanct and the grants given to the UK are also not written into law and are directed i.e. we don't get to say where that money is spent. So, from my perspective, I'd rather the government of the UK decides where to spend the money, not an unelected bunch in Brussels who don't give a flying fig for the member states. On the issue of the laws of the UK, the 10% figure is correct if you take it as strictly 'laws'. However, when you factor in that the decisions of the Commission have to be worked up into legislation and directives etc, then the 60% figues is much closer to the truth. It is this figure which is the issue since our government has no say over having to enact whatever rules and directives come out of the Commission. As for real plans in place, well none of the 'leave' team are likely to be leading a government, so to expect them to have detailed plans in place and agreed is totally unrealistic. That doesn't mean however, that their general approach could not be implemented. If you expect detailed plans you will be diappointed, in the same way as there are no detailed plans for if we stay. Is this necessary? Yes, because the EU is about to change dramatically and those changes will impact us significantly. Remain don't like to talk about this because they know it doesn't look good for us. However, whichever way you look at it, the remain side is almost wholly based on fear, threats and an unenthusiastic grudging defence of the EU. It's hardly a ringing endorsement. I listened to the labour party talking about it at their conference earlier today, and they were almost wholly negative about the EU, and spent most of their time trying to attack the leave campaign. Where's the passion for staying? There wasn't any. The only argument remain have is 'don't take a chance.' Not a convincing case for why the EU is such a wonderful institution is it? We Brits are better than that, so I'm with Boris - I'd love to see tomorrow as our independence day.

To my mind its simply a matter of deciding who runs the country, the government or the EU. With an elected government we can kick out who we don't like. With the EU we can't. For me it all boils down to this simple question. Add in to this mix some of the outright lies being told, especially by remain and I too am for out. For instance Cameron keeps telling us that Turkey won't be joining any time soon, but that isn't never. He claims to have a veto, but won't say he will use it. He claims that Turkey isn't on course to join, but they applied to join last century and we are now giving them £1 billion to help them make their case. And finally, as soon as the referendum is over, the EU is re-starting talks on Turkey's accession. So all this crap about they won't join until the distant future is all so much horse manure, designed to make us think that the government is acting responsibly and in our interest. It isn't and it doesn't. And if anybody thinks its just the tories, well Jeremy Corbyn's labour party would act no differently. It's little wonder we all have no regard for politicians.

Got a five pence the other day.

Don't know exactly, but there is a 1934 specimen that's in fine condition at best, so it must have gone on well after WW2 I would have thought. Many of the other wreath crowns were also spent at sometime in their lives, and saw some limited circulation. However, I entirely accept that they were not really intended for circulation. The real challenge is to find a churchill crown in fine - I'm told they are then quite attractive, if you can believe that!!

A kind of loss leader then!

Just to add to the fun, the beads appear different, but this might be the photograph and the rims seem to be different thicknesses.

Good luck to the Westminster Collection who are apparently the new owners. I can't see them making much of a profit out of this one, not after having paid £1,350 for it.

I wasn't particularly raising the issue of including this coin in the Spink Catalogue. I just thought that the lack of any response to a reasonable suggestion was something that helped define my view of Spink and the people who work there. I'm not really bothered whether anybody raises it with them again or whether the DEI GRATIA halfpenny ends up in their catalogue or not. For the record, I think I made the suggestion well ahead of the deadline for the printers of the 2016 edition, but I may be wrong as I can't find the email now. Having said this, I do find the reply from Spink to be very odd. Even in poor condition, the legend of this type leaps out as something different from the run of the mill William III halfpenny, so why they couldn't work out 'what on earth was being suggested' is very strange. Add to that that it was from their own circular that two others were described/sold in the past and it seems even more odd that this coin hasn't made it to their catalogue. However, I entirely accept the point about inclusion of coins in the catalogue. Of course that's for Spink to decide, and I understand why they wouldn't want to include every minor variety (although I do think their variety inclusion policy is somewhat inconsistent). However, this is scarcely a 'minor' variety, since it repesents the first, short lived copper coinage of William III, rather than a minor design change. They have included the 1689 halfcrown first reverse type and the 1823 first obverse type, rare though it is, so it does seem odd not to want to include the DEI GRATIA halfpenny. If they don't want these types, then why include the 1687 first bust tin farthing? Consistency seems to me to be the issue.

Based on my experience of him over the 1882 no H penny, he's one to avoid like the plague.

Not connected with buying through them, I approached them by email some 9 months or so ago about including the 1695 DEI GRATIA halfpenny in the next edition of their Coins Of England book. Didn't get the courtesy of a reply, so I don't think I would have any interest in anything they might be selling, certainly not if this is their attitude. I don't deal with people like this, regardless of their 'name.'

They are under Edward VIII and were issued posthumously.

I presume that plate is put on electrically whilst wash is literally dipping in molten silver. However, I may be wrong!

If 2691 isn't an option (it's certainly the best) then 2694 would be next, followed by 2692, then 2693.

There is/was a guy on ebay who has made a business out of trashing sets and selling individual coins. Can't remember his moniker, but from memory he was selling quite well, and was certainly up on the deal compared to the price of indiviudal sets.

Don't consider the investment angle. Back in the 1960s coin dealers were pushing Churchill Crowns as investments, and today you still can't give them away. Indeed, when you consider that I used to earn £1-10/- for working 8 hours at J Lyons, washing up on a Saturday, five shillings was a fair sum to pay at face value for a coin. Given that you might be able to sell one now for 25p, i.e. today's equivalent face value, if you are lucky, the erosion of value has been huge. It will be no different for this coin. Keep one if you like it, or collect them, but forget investment.

A quick check on mine shows that I have Obv S and this has the tiny gap between R and E. For what it is worth, my coin has the Gouby Aa reverse.

Way over priced for pretty much everything else too.

If you want to hear a coherant 'leave' argument, you would do well to look up Dan Hannan. He makes Gove, Johnson etc. look like muppets. Even Farage looks mediocre by comparison.

Ditto. Never had a problem.

On another forum, the subject of understanding the facts of the in/out arguments is under discussion. Here's my cartwheel tuppence worth. There is a simple answer to the question about facts and it goes like this. Firstly, ignore all the financial stuff. The IMF, OECD, ONS etc all get things wrong and so their assessment about financial meltdown can be taken as nothing more than an educated guess. Even they do not suggest total collapse of the economy and a slump to abject poverty. The world and the UK will go on after an exit, and the impact in the longer term will be slight if even noticeable. And if we stay, the same is true. Whatever stupidity the EU and Eurozone imposes on us our world will still go on. In short forget facts about the money because there aren't any, and even if there were, circumstances would quickly alter over time to make them irelevant. Now take some of the other issues. For instance security or climate change. When you think about it both are sideshows, whether we are in the EU or not. The channel gives us a measure of security not enjoyed by the rest of Europe, and as for climate change it seems to me that since we account for about 2% of world emissions, whatever we do, inside or outside the EU, really won't make a blind bit of difference, so again ignore it. This is true also for many other 'minor' areas associated with our membership or otherwise, such as visa free travel, the ban on high energy vacuum cleaners or mobile phone roaming charges. My point here is again that facts don't really matter in the slightest in the grand scheme of things. They are trivia. Does anybody really think that giving people visa free travel arrangements is a good reason in itself for staying in? I could go on and on, but cutting to the chase the only issue you need to focus on is the central and critical one of who do you want to govern you. Whatever you think of the voting system in the UK or the government of the day, history shows that elections can bring change, and thus the people do have a measure of collective say over who governs them. Remain in the EU, and it is a 'fact' that much of the laws and regulations that cover daily life is not put in place by the UK government, but by the EU. Not all, and not in all areas of life e.g education isn't covered. A second 'fact' is that you and I and every other citizen of the EU has absolutely no say in appointing whoever brings about the legislation and the endless flow of regulations from Brussels. You can do nothing to stop it and nothing to sack them. Now this is where you have a choice. You can leave, and have a government that has control over all aspects of national life and which you can get rid if you wish, or you can stick with an unelected bunch of elites who do whatever they wish collectively regardless of the impact on EU citizens, over whom you have no say whatsoever. All the time the EU is doing things that benefit you, you might regard this as OK, but I'm guessing if you were a Greek you'd feel rather different. So this is your stark choice. Do you want us to be governed from within, or do you want to be governed by foreigners over whom you have absolutely no control? Notice that I have studiously avoided the 'I' word, but clearly on the basis of who governs us, control of immigration can only be taken if the country governs itself. Leave and our government decides what immigration is needed and acceptable. Stay and we have no control whatsoever. Choice is yours on 23 June, but the question is simply this 'Who should govern the UK?' For me, the answer is that I want us to govern ourselves. All the rest is just froth on top of the coffee.

The 2009 is there. It's the 2011 that's missing from the RM site.

You mean the 2011 version?

I've got one - a Cromwell shilling. Not a bad copy, but obviously not 'right' if you know what I mean.